I was thinking more about it, at lunch today. The John McCain quote. And I’m starting to think that the parallel construction works much better than I originally gave it credit.
First, let’s review what he said.
This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.
I had pretty much denoted the parts thus:
- Senator McCain
- x = lose a political campaign
- y = lose a war
- Senator Obama
- b = lose a war
- c = win a political campaign
But, clearly, y = b, so at the very least I should make it Senator Obama would rather y in order to c. That’s some parallelism right there.
But furthermore, the lose a political campaign is the exact opposite of win a political campaign. That would make c equal to the reciprocal of x. So then we would have it be Senator Obama would rather y in order to 1/x.
And then the final structure would be Senator McCain would rather x than y; whereas, Senator Obama would rather y in order to 1/x.
Far, far more parallel than I gave it credit. It still isn’t true, mind. But it does have an internal logic that I first missed.